6201, her new lease of life.

Not if it hadn't been steamed

 

Could the limited information in the public domain at this stage be down to discussions going on in the background regarding why this has occurred, for instance if contractors were involved in the boiler works these could be owner - contractor discussions regarding advice and warranty? or likewise with suppliers of the tubes if they were replaced and have failed this soon - ultimately it needs doing so they need the money but were they to wait with the appeal until all the i's we dotted and the t's crossed on causation she could be months of not years further into her ticket before the appeal even started?

 

That assumes normal use though, in the first 18 months or so it barely moved or even steamed being confined to Tyseley, No way would that inflict anything like 4 years of wear you'd expect from from a mainline loco racking up mileage and steaming cycles.

I don't think it's unfair to suggest 6023 probably has more mileage and boiler cycles on it in this ticket than 6201 currently.

 

In formal terms isn't the first witnessed hydraulic test when the clock starts ticking from or even the point of last full internal exam? You would expect an examiner to account for lack of use when setting the schedule though, I quite agree. Just observing that simply because it was recertified last year does not mean it has used less than12 months of boiler life.

 

No.

 

Fullsome reply much appreciated. Most informative and I stand utterly corrected.

 

As I understand, there is no absolute prescription, but there is best practice guidance. The "Competent Person" (typically reporting on behalf of the insurance company) has to conduct a thorough examination of the boiler while cold, and then in steam. Once they have seen the boiler in steam to their satisfaction, they sign off operation until some date in the future - but there is no clock per se, just the date that they write on the inspection report beyond which operation of the boiler is prohibited. The "in steam" examination has to happen as soon as is reasonably practical after the cold examination, but again there is no explicit time scale. Those examinations would occur according to a written scheme of examination, typically annually.

The "ten yearly" is also best practice, not statute. The precise wording is that "no part of the boiler should remain completely unexamined for longer than the time determined by the competent person" and goes on to clarify that best practice indicates that that would be ten years. But ultimately it is down to the judgement of the competent person; they may recommend less or, in some cases, allow a modest extension. Normally the Competent Person will have been consulted during any overhaul or repairs of the boiler, (and those repairs have to be documented) so they will form their judgement based both on what they see on the day and what they know about the previous history and operation of the boiler.

Operation on the mainline may have additional regulations which I don't know about in any detail.

Tom

 

Done

 

Sorry I wasn't more specific. There's an awful lot of misconception about boiler tickets and I know I don't understand all of the nuances involved.

 

6201 could be placed alongside 46235 at Think Tank in Brum as an example of development, then the hordes would be clamouring for her release......battens down the hatches

 

In my experience it comes down to a sensible discussion between the Owner and the Competent Person. For main line registered locos, I've quoted MT276 and the seven year requirement but this document is a BR one and dates from 1984 and precedes both the Pressure Systems Regulations 2000 and its 1988 predecessor. I think that it is really down to the VAB, who may use MT276 as a basis for assessment in the absence of anything else.

 

After reading many comments with regard to inspections and tube life, I am posting this link which I have posted before and if you haven't already seen it, it is well worth watching and gives examples of just how long tubes can last.

 

I must have missed this the first time around. Have you trialed Tross stays as yet? Martyn Bane, who used to post on this forum, tried to interest people in water treatment based on TIA/Porta type thinking but with negligible result. In the U.K. people generally adhere to the view that nothing is an advance on what was done in the past, particularly when it comes to steam. But they sure bleat about the cost of running the machines. But, hey ho, nothing new will ever work.

 

I've watched it twice now and don't think there is too much to learn
The big thing about the Porta treatment regime is the length of operation without draining the water. In the UK, any suggestion of running more than 30 days without an internal examination is really a non-starter. This is easily achieved with present water treatment regimes, so why change?

 

So our boilers have stays that don't suffer from corrosion etc. etc. Face it people would rather spend money, frequently not their own, rather than change from what they know.

 

Did I say anything about not using water treatment? Read what I said before jumping in. Porta treatment is just one method of treating boilers. There are plenty of others.

 

From what ive heard from people close to the engine, the first statement in this post seems to pretty much summarise the situation.....

 

Apparently as part of an agreed ongoing plan with the boiler competent person / insurance company, the small tubes were always going to be changed at this point in time as they are just severn years old now! Having first been used in the loco in 2010....
At the overhaul all the flues were removed along with sufficient small tubes to enable the boiler inspector to gain access through the dome to undertake a thorough internal exam of the boiler, the rest of the small tubes were still in place and had only had three years service at that point in time......
The hydraulic test was undertaken in 2014.
Unfortunately it took rather longer than hoped to raise the funds required to complete the overhaul and the loco basically stood for the next two years other than the odd Tys open day.
Sadly it seems now that the loco didnt manage to raise enough money through its operations to fund its upkeep, and is now stood again awaiting funding.....

 

I would suggest if Tubes are having to be replaced so frequently there is a substantial amount to learn.